User:Tsweeney617/Influence of mass media/Amb8675 Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? TSweeny617
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Tsweeney617/Influence of mass media

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
There is also not a lead in this one to evaluate, it is specific sections within the article. In the main article itself, it also seems totally fine.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
You have, "Until after World War II mass media was never really a concept and wasn't taken advantage of because the proper channels didn't exist." followed with "During the late 1920s the radio was adopted by FDR as a means for communication with the American people, but nobody was quite sure if it would stick. Until the 1930s around 40% of every American family owned a radio, and only a decade later that number doubled to 83% . Not only were radios used to have live broadcasts of news but families were able to listen to a wide variety of dramas, talk shows, comedy, music, and educational programs as well." which would seem to imply that mass media was widely in use prior to the ending of WW2 in 1945? This is something I would definitely clarify and maybe check in on the years in which when mass media came into existence. I really like the direction you headed here though with giving specific numbers of when radios became more widespread and that you included FDR's fireside chats.

Much of the original article is beyond my knowledge base, but it all seems relevant to the topic.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
"How it has helped society:


 * The media is made out to be somewhat dangerous but not all aspects are bad
 * Because of the sheer amount of attention that mass media has it has helped create awareness for certain policies or changes that need to be made that otherwise might not have been as well-known.
 * With well-done investigate reporting it has the possibility of helping more people, whether that be shedding light on corrupt politicians or information that can lead to helping the community as a whole
 * advertising the American Dream"

This section I quoted feels very biased. While I don't disagree with all of your statements, they are very much so feel like you are trying to get your reader to see those things and agree with your thoughts on it. So, again, even though I don't totally disagree, I don't think this is a good fit for a wiki article. I think saying that media has shed light on topics that may not be as well known is fine or that investigative journalism has the potential to bring up important topics. But, saying "The media is made out to be somewhat dangerous but not all aspects are bad" as a way that it has helped society feels very subjective and biased. Same with "advertising the American Dream". So, not all bad, but in here I would recommend looking back through it and seeing where it has your opinions on the subjects.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
All of your sources look good! the formatting in the reference section is a bit wonky, but I get that. But, do definitely put those throughout your article, though. Although you have some awesome and informational sources, I think it would be good to include them in more places given as in your "gender and relation to media" section you only have one citation halfway through it. I also think you only use 3 of your sources in your article as of now. (I'm sorta assuming you just haven't put them in yet, but know it needs to get done).

Again, much of the original article goes beyond me, but they seem like they are good sources.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
There is some grammatical issues, but it is nothing major. If you read through it outloud I'm guessing you'll see more of those. The content itself though is overall well organized and broken up into appropriate sections. I would consider changing the title of your section about "History of Mass Media" given that is already in the main article, but this is minor. Also, section headers (e.g. "History of Mass Media" and "Gender In Relation to Media" should be in sentence case, not title case.

the original article seems average and just like any other wikipedia page in terms of organization.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
N/A

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

New Article Evaluation
N/A

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
I really love the information you added! I think it will add in a ton of useful learning tools onto this wikipedia page and it is definitely going to be more complete once it has been edited out a bit more and published! I feel like I was very heavy on the criticisms on this review of how I think should could improve your work further so I won't beat at that any further because I do think you are doing an awesome job so far. I think the biggest strengths of what you are adding is that this article did not have much about consumerism relationship with mass media and I think you did a good job at elaborating it out.

As for the original article, again, much of it I don't know too much about so it doesn't stand out to me as particularly wonderful or bad.

Added Questions

 * Do you thoughtfully respond to the evaluation questions with at least a short statement? yes
 * Did you review the original article in addition to your peer's sandbox draft? yes
 * Do you respectfully push them toward growth and point out strengths? I tried too!! I felt like I was a bit harsh but it also felt like things that needed to be pointed out but I am sorry if it did not come off respectfully.
 * Have you accurately identified any major issues? I believe I did.
 * Do you answer these questions in the "overall evaluation" section?
 * Does your peer have 5-7 reliable sources? Their is 7 listed, but only 3 in use in the article itself.
 * Is at least one of them a source from class reading or the "suggested sources" list? Yes
 * Does the topic link in some way to our course material? Yes! it is a lot less directly related in that the article is not named about something that strictly relates to our class, but the work you are doing does for sure.
 * Does your peer add historical context to their article? I think so!!!
 * Based on what you know from course content, what do you think Wikipedia users should know about this topic? In other words, what would you recommend adding and/or considering further? I would elaborate more on this "When the economy was struggling the government and companies had to find ways to advertise for more consumption and what it could do for the economy. Companies started using ads to their advantage and they were able to reach a broader audience, this wasn't just for selling products it was also to spread news faster and keep society informed." Talking about what the economic hardships were, how ads were able to fix it, what it did do for the economy, etc/